to take time off from my job at ibm to care for our son alone while my wife went to -- been the sole provider for family regrettably that did not seem feasible to me at that time. my wife went to arizona with her son. once there she turned off her cell phone and sent the occasional e-mail saying she was in arizona continuing to work on this family emergency. i didn't know what was really happening. was my child suffering endanger? the idea of my son might be in trouble force me to stop refusing to ask myself the real question about what was going on. is my uncertainty and fear drive began a frantic investigation to my wife's activity plans and associations. i trace the origin of her e-mails to find she was in arizona at all.

she was in mexico. i began to see what she was doing and what her intentions were. although my wife and is never endeavor to explain why she did this before long i would learn my wife had been having a long-running affair with one of her friends and her social group and had left to live with him in nogales mexico. after significant effort i located my son and initiated legal proceedings for his return under the hague convention. for good reason the abduction convention is widely viewed as completely ineffective in mexico. i can discuss the various problems in mexico that prevent the effective implementation of the abduction convention there. i feel doing so misses the forest for the trees. in my own sincere opinion our priority should not be to address problems in mexico that we have little control over. child abduction to mexico from the u.s. is as much in american policy problem if it is a mexican one and as much as mexico is cited for failing to take appropriate measures to curb the abduction of children the u.s. government is likewise criticized for not taking appropriate measures to protect the american children or support american parents in their

efforts to recover their internationally adopted children. the proximity and close relationship between the united states in mexico makes the problem of one country the problems of both and by extension places the responsibility of addressing the problem on both countries. this type of bilateral cooperation is part of a broad recognition of the fact that his neighbors both nations share the responsibility of addressing our problems. american parents rightfully complained that they are alone in dealing with foreign courts and legal systems. the u.s. state department as a virtual monopoly on information in such cases but refuses to share this information are act as a vigorous advocate for america's victimized families. there's an explicit complex of interest between state states goals of maintaining pleasant bilateral foreign relations and assertive and effective advocacy in the systems on behalf of american citizens. upon being assigned a caseworker at the office of children's issues and having a first conversation with him i remember thinking to myself, my god, they put the department of motor vehicles in charge of recovering my son. to my subsequent horror i've

come to appreciate just how accurate that initial impression was. of my guidance for practical information and how i should proceed to remove or repeat what claims they could not provide legal advice. when i look back on the way the office of children's issues oriented me on how to handle the abduction of my son and i have very little doubt that they were essentially setting up for the rapid failure of the hague application for my son's return by not providing me with basic and essential facts. they were effectively guiding me down a path that would lead to the fast resolution of the hague proceedings but which would inevitably result in a denial of my sons repatriation. because the chair result leads to a quick resolution of a potential incident they consider such results a form of success and view the american children's loss of american family heritage is an acceptable level of collateral damage. it was only through an obsessive focus on my part that he managed to avoid the role they had laid out for me. in 2009, the mexican family court rendered a decision that lately got every issue of fact

and laurent and in contradiction of every piece of evidence other than my wife's unilateral test my the judge denied my son sons returned to the u.s. claiming my wife had been in mexico since a tour of 2007 rather than the actual date of june 2000 i waited too long to file an application for his return. in order to further prove during my pill that my wife provided criminally fraudulent testimony in mexican courts i requested that the u.s. state department obtained copies of her entry and exit records to the united states. in the conversations that ensue, escalated this issue to the abduction unit chief and claimed they could not give me this information because it would violate my wife's privacy. in spite of the fact we remained legally married and that should criminally adept at our child to a dangerous third world countries. when i asked to have the entry and exit records for my son for whom i am the legal custodial parent i was told that this was not the role that oci played and they aren't allowed to give legal advice or assistance. furthermore they said the information i'm looking forward be of no use to mean court

because mexico and the lecturer land border that allows for fluent entry and exit between the countries. therefore they claim proving she entered and exited the country would not prove the date of the illegal abduction and retention. i couldn't help wonder if moments after they said for the 1000th time they can give me legal advice why were they given me legal advice so i asked oci they had a mexican attorney for which they apply they did not. why were they not telling me the information i was requesting was of no legal use to me in mexican court during my appeal when it was an eye own attorney telling me to obtain this information? at various points out this request of cia told me something to the effect that a decision had been made in my case sometimes having the appeal is up to me and my attorney. the clear subtext of the statements was we consider your case closed. we agree with the family court's decision and we aren't going to get involved or help you undo what we view as the acceptable resolution of your son's abduction case. no matter how unjust there resolution itself may be. the important thing was an aura

of legitimacy has been created around license protection and a potential irritant had been eliminated. we cannot continue to offer a prayer at the big children as sacrificial lambs at the altar of pleasant bilateral relations. the u.s. state department and by extension the rest of the u.s. government it unwillingness to invest the smallest amount of capital and protecting our children is inconsistent with their values as americans. contrary to the idea that abandoning children helps us achieve our other more important policy goals, our callous indifference to the point of art that the children served to bolster the argument of american critics that our foreign policy is dominated by the interest of american corporations rather than a fundamental respect for justice and human rights or comerica lee's best when it leads by example and i hope we will continue to do that. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much for your testimony. let me begin the questioning

first and i will start with you, beginning with the last. i thank you for your very blunt assessment. i think you know, i have spoken now to dozens of left-behind parents and one sense that i get from some and maybe from many is the fear that if they are too strong with the office of children's issue and issues and with their own government, the congress and the senate perhaps, that there is a sense of retaliation that might come their way or a lack of robustness in resolving their case. somehow the case will be multiple out of fear of retaliation. you spared no words in expressing your profound dismay over the performance of our government, and i think that has to be taken to heart in a very very meaningful way. no child should ever be a sacrificial lamb. you talked about the aura of legitimacy. in terms of your description,

and frankly when it comes to human rights in my experience over the last 31 years, as a member of congress who takes human rights very seriously, write many laws on human rights, and very often human rights is demoted to an asterisk when it comes to pleasant state relationships, statecraft somehow looks and says the human rights agenda as oh that, in irritant as you perhaps suggested. and i'm wondering if any of the panelists and especially you mr. bring it is because you were so strong on this would like to address that issue, because these are your children, and all of your children and to think that you need to walk on eggshells out of fear of all being done that should he done is done is appalling. we are here to serve you. all of us see it that way. the members who were here believe passionately in human

rights. i know that and i think you will see that by their comments. but no one in the state department or here or on staffer anywhere should ever put any of you add ill ease to somehow your concerns are not front and center and foremost on our mind. you did not sugarcoat one iota and i think we need to take it too hard and learn from out. your bluntness is well received at least by this member. so perhaps you might want to speak to that. and, let me also ask because i don't want to take too much time, we have two additional panels. and you know, i mentioned the diplomatic side very often putting this down at the bottom. we heard that at our previous hearing and we have heard that before. that you know, one of the things our legislation would do on child abduction would be to give the state department serious tools to say we are not kidding.

we say to japan, we are not getting. we hold you to account and we will take, or impose serious measures or penalties if you continue this pattern of noncooperation and if you leave the left-behind parents a straight astray the way you have done so repeatedly. if you want to speak a little bit further that is up to you. let me also ask mr. goldman with regards to so many tactics used against you and the other two families -- parents who might want to speak to this as well but the delay is denial. i found in your case and i've seen it elsewhere but especially in your case where you had a hague literate attorney using all of which should have been done against you. i'm talking about the opposition's attorney, and that is to somehow suggest in the proceedings that the child has become so accustomed to their new home, the place of

abduction, that it would be ill-advised to pull them out of that environment. it says to the abductors, hold onto that child long enough and then you can use that too is one of your argument points to continue the abduction. the abduction occurs every day but it is almost as if the abduction is done anew each and every day, every 24 hour period that child has been re-abducted. so if you want to speak to that and then if i could too, ms. edwards, i wonder how helpful our embassy in ankara has been for you, whether or not they have stepped up and made this an important issue? you mentioned the office of children's issues. if you might want to elaborate on that a little further. they should a passionate advocates. they may feel ill-advised or ill-equipped to provide legal advice that they have to fight

for an american parents and american children's human rights. that seems to have not gotten through in the way it ought to, so if you perhaps want to elaborate further on that. please, mr. bermudez if he could begin. >> yes and just in response to your comments, you continue to demonstrate an uncanny intuition or knowledge of just really what this issue is about, and it really helps bring hope to me that there is someone in our congress that really understands this and is really working towards addressing this problem. i guess to address the various parts of your comments, one concern i have, i have read carefully both pieces of legislation that you have authored related to this issue. one concern that i would like to -- one overriding concern rather that i would like to

raise is providing the ability of states to enact sanctions will be an empty half measure if we don't demonstrate a lack of will to use any such tools. in regards to my comments, i share the concern that speaking out about the american government is complicitness in the abduction of our children, i was also very concerned that in doing so i was going to lose whatever assistance they were actually providing me and in deep reflection on that very idea, i convince myself that they were doing nothing and in speaking out about these issues i was effectively losing no assistance whatsoever. though this is something that many parents that i have spoken to have also expressed as a concerned that if they say anything publicly there will be a retaliation.

actually there is some precedent for that. tom johnson in left behind parent and attorney at the state department and patricia were both denied a seat at the various discussions on this very topic after 10 years ago, which kind of speaks to the long-standing nature of this problem. 10 years ago, speaking out against what they viewed as various inadequacies in the state department handling of this issue. i think that covers all the points i wanted to make. >> my experience has shown that oci can be characterized as professional but also extremely distant and what that means is they can give an abc set of steps, but they won't commit to give me gh an i and i need to know those in order to meet my plan worked up early. so it is almost like they feel like they have a role and the

assistance to make it as, i don't know how to word this, i guess i just was not at all satisfied knowing how the process would continue, and that if i finish one who there will be another one waiting that is assured that i did know how to make that plan forward. the biggest issue now that my hague is filed in going forward in turkey is that the communication between the central authority there and i case representative oci has been less than full, so i get in touch with her every couple of weeks to get updates. the last time she contacted me instead of as a response, it was because someone in the turkish media wanted to film our union and the news got back to her. she couldn't believe that i would do that. i couldn't believe that she wouldn't have asked me, have you heard about this? i -- there are ridiculous

amounts of people that have harassed or i should say approached every single one of us in this situation. the turkish media said they know where my son is and that if i go on their show that they will assure a reunion. i want them to report where my son is to the turkish authorities. that is not something the american embassy has been able to help me with so i guess that little and it got kind of fills you in on my site. >> was there any attempt by the consular office in turkey to do a welfare whereabouts? >> i still have thankfully right now webcam access. i kind of have to put that on hold. i don't feel like that is an infinite resource so i'm using that when i have to have that. any time my husband threatens to take my son from -- to syria which is a border sharing country, i open the communication again so they know i'm ready to have that sent out as needed but no, i've not had a

welch headquartered so far. >> as our ambassador in turkey raised your particular issue with the foreign ministry? >> i am completely unaware that is happened. >> you should not have to ask. >> i'm not aware at all if that is happened. >> mr. bermudez has that happened in her case? >> and actually to make her aware, the u.s. legislation at the abduction convention parents are entitled to have welfare whereabouts visits every six months. this is something allowed by the geneva convention. i've had to visit over the last three years. the first made it immediately in the second one i had to get by congressmen and senators involved to have my son's well-being ascertained but i have had two visits. blows recently i was in mexico trying to get them to another one and allowed me to attend if at all possible. and that is still something i'm working on.

>> mr. goldman? >> we all face sort of a feeling like we are marked with a scarlet letter initially when our children are abducted. there is this guilt, there's this there is this feeling of what we did wrong. people are looking at us, you must have been some terrible people for a mom or a dad to run off with our children. clearly it is not the case. these are oftentimes very badly behaved people. there is no real unit of measurement on the actual abductor. they can stay within the country they are living, filed file for a divorce or separation like parents do in a separate, couples do, or they could say you know what? i'm going to give it a shot. i'm going to go to this country where i know i will have to jurisdictional advantage and the worst-case scenario is i get sent back. and then have a normal divorce proceeding in the country which

i should have started this out to begin with. so, i know there has been suggestions of the exit control which is great. would have helped me because i drove my wife and son and her parents to the airport with love, hugs and kisses and she went to this foreign country, applies for a divorce or custody rather and the courts of brazil. without me even knowing it for many many months later. so, that is how we start. if we show anger, if we show like we are outraged, i think i feel like you are state department wants to look for something to dismiss dismiss us as much as someone who just can't believe that a parent could take a child from another parent without the left behind parent having done something that deserved it. so we are starting out with this overwhelming feeling we are kind a ball with a scarlet letter. they are very adept at maneuvering and stalling in the

courts. as you noted the abductors of my son were in fact lecturing to different legal fellow attorneys in brazil on how the abducting parent can turn the abducted child into an attack missile against the left behind parent. and he is also, while they were holding my son goes glee in brazil, this family of lawyers were also lecturing on how a clever lawyer can stall the judicial system with endless appeals and motions to keep that child in the ducting country for years on end. eventually, the court will say well, we know the child has been held illegally. we get that he or she has been affected but now they are adapted. so let's reward the kidnapper and let's be a country that actually rewards child abduction

to the abductor and again this is where we need to step in with the sanction should show we are not going to tolerate this. there is no real deterrent for these of ducting parents. and there is no punitive measure for them to face. the first thing a country would do is if you filed criminal charges is where the hague convention as good as it is they use it as a double-edged sword because it is a civil remedy. if america starts filing criminal prosecution against all these child abductors which we would in our own country if they took them across state lines, then the country where the child is adopted will say we are not going to return that child back to their home state because then the abducting parent will be in jail and they won't be able to see the child. so i mean, as the left behind parent all these thoughts go through your mind in your heart, what do we do? what can we do? it seems to me that the most sensible is to start with the sanctions and use them. collin bower in the back, his

son, his son were taken to egypt by an abusive drug-addicted mother who forged passports. they entered egypt with different last names on the passports than the mother. they entered egypt. egypt recognizes that they are held illegally yet they are still in egypt. we just basically gave egypt a billion dollars. three would forgo a debt of $1 billion we will give them a billion more. glad that they are going to be a democracy, glad that -- bad that our children are still held their illegally by unfit parents, let alone just of ducting what should've been returned anyway. we have another case and i believe it will be testifying with michel elias. he served two terms in the desert, came back a wounded veteran. the japanese embassy in new york a fraudulent passports to the

abducting mother of the children and they are in japan in illegally. there has got to be something we can do. it is outrageous and it is only getting worse year after year. as i said earlier the room was smaller in the crowds are bigger. hopefully we won't have to be here next year because the countries will be returning our children. >> thank you. [applause] >> let me say that i really appreciate the testimony, those of which i heard and those that i read. and i think that you probably, through your testimony and the letter to the secretary and also your answering of the questions have answered the primary questions that i had.

i would though like to review your case. what do you think the primary, the primary reasons that you finally got the release of your son was through senators or congressman smith, the convention? because your case is successful. of course it took a long, long time. i wonder what advice you would have specifically to other parents that you would give right now? >> well, essentially i walked in their shoes with my pleas falling on deaf ears. i had a very skillful team of attorneys. the first order that i received

that would call for the return of my son, that first-order is the most crucial order as you go through the process and the legal arena. it needs to be basically as solid and orders you can get. you only get one for shots that you definitely need an attorney who is very skillful con international child abduction, hague or non-hague countries for that first-order is paramount. second, what brought it to the attention, essentially with the media. the media in my case acted as a fourth branch of government. i've brought this story. would call people's attention. it cause for so long -- i'd like many people had family members, friends wanting to help but what could they do? they could do little more than what i could do and finally when it caught the attention of congressman smith and your colleagues, who could actually do something and would do something, that made the difference. it began with a media and ultimately ended with sanctions

by senator lautenberg. that shows sanctions mean something. these countries want our money more than they want our children, and it is unfortunate but that is what it takes. we give so many of these countries billions of dollars in aid, and if we to have the sanctions ready and waiting, more often than not they will return our children without us having to use them. if we use them once or twice on the worst offenders to get our kids home, they know we are serious. we should be. most of those countries are friends and allies and some of them it is just inherent in their whole domestic system as japan. they have very archaic domestic laws when it comes to child custody to begin with so they need to start there before i can really feel comfortable with them proceeding to the hague convention. >> are you able to find

attorneys? were you or any of the others, an attorney in the country so to speak that would be willing to fight the red tape in their country? in other words, to take your side against their government, either one of you? what was your success or lack of success trying to get qualified attorney to really find on your behalf against their countries? >> i myself am relatively early in the process still, so i have the hague case under investigation and it is going forward in the government has opened a case on my behalf for my sons returned. actually they had a hearing this morning at 9:00 this morning. so, in finding the attorney though, i was amazed to find someone who has passable english or constantly deal with the translator. for that person to be versed in

the hague is very rare and for that person to be in the city where you need them is also rare so what you are doing is going for an entire country and trying to find an expert and put them in a location where they can serve you. i would love to have the money to get the best attorney anywhere in turkey and have that person relocate for the course of this case or the travel for the hearing but those are not dependent -- conditions we live in. ivan attorney who represents me and we do work with the translator because i decided that her proficiency in english was less important than her proficiency in the hague. >> but these are decisions you have to make and you have to be timely and then you have to constantly have the fear was that the right choice and how do you know that this person i talked to is -- how do i know that they're not going to take the money and run or hide way know that this person is acting in my interest when clearly a judge in a turkish attorney went way around the law to grant her husband full custody of my son.

that case i am having overturned in turkey and it is going to be we heard and not that should have any effect on the hague, which is pending but every little bit -- i don't know what my hague judges going to consider when he sees a turkish custody ruling. but also i had to put off for a long time because i'm concerned about what i do there. how will that have implications here? what'll i do here that will mess up here? i am still married to this man because i worried divorce would allow him the opportunity to appeal the ohio custody. there are all these intricate things to balance and maneuver so finding the attorney sure is an issue, just one of many and i would say the list of attorneys in the state department's web site is not the way to go. you have to go through social networks and find word-of-mouth. that way as a whole lot of time and money wasted trying to find someone. they will say yeah make you can retain me for 10,000 upfront and 20,000 to get her some home. it is a racket.

>> actually that is an important question. attorneys, not for nothing, don't have the best reputation in any country. mexico is somewhat legendary in terms of not having a national way of accrediting attorney so there is actually a large number of incompetent attorneys in mexico and selecting the a confident attorney that has the qualities that sarah just elicited is essential. and, initially i asked the state department if they could provide me with a list of attorneys that have reduced we handle these types of cases, so i knew i had someone with experience. and they refuse to give this to me. they flat out said we can't provide legal advice and we can't make any kind of recommendation. i think that is atrocious. i think at the very least they could -- and through trial and error and lots of interviews and a massive amount of effort i had

someone -- some luck and hiring attorneys in mexico but i do speak spanish and i can relate to the difficulty of finding an attorney in the country who can speak the language. so it is unfortunate. australia is a great example where they handled this much better. there is financial assistance provided trek lead to parents to hire an attorney and to locate one. so that is one of many things i think can be improved upon and the united states handling of child abduction cases. >> in your opinion, probably the tactic, people would expect you to be worn down. even though it is your child your finances become an issue in number two, the delays in bureaucracy and the postponements and they figure they will just, time is on their side. they will win just by inertia of

inaction. is that what you think? >> 100%. time is our enemy and they are at debt debt stalling and manipulating in keeping these cases going for years until we are emotionally, financially, physically bankrupt. and then we just walk is a dead man walking forever. it is a terrible pain to deal with and to live with. in brazil, it was taking so long for the brazilian central authority to even process my case that i had to hire a private attorney and then the government of brazil says we are not going to support you because now it is an individual case, united private attorney so you are if you do and you are if you don't. they look for anything to keep the kid there. >> and your two cases, because both have less publicity than of course -- maybe it didn't but i'm in new jersey so i follow the case very closely. did they attempt as the normally would do as in your case, to change, that turned to child --

turn the child against you? how did both of your children respond and what were their ages? how do you know if a? >> my boy is three now. he was two when he left. and because i'm able to see him by webcam, i know that he knows he oim. who i am. he calls me sarah. he doesn't have any english, so i learned turkish to keep up with him. we look at richer books. constantly concerned about losing his attention. i can't hold them, can play with them and can't give them a bowl. i'm trying to find new ways all the time to keep them involved. so far i haven't, have not dealt so far with legal maneuverings that were -- but i strongly believe that even if i win my case, mohammed as a flight risk. then what? he is going to go somewhere else? than what? he hides in a village in the

family protects him. so the other side of that is somewhat enforcement, some political will to say this person has won her case or this person's case was wrongfully ruled or whatever the case but to follow through on that. just like i mentioned before about knowing where to go next, knowing how this death affects the next we have to be able to see this all the way through. i'm not going to wait until he leaves to try to find him. i'm not going to wait until he leaves to try to prevent it but thankfully so far that hasn't been the case. i do not know what he says about me. i only imagine it is very bad things because his family who i've known for eight years and loved turned against me. clearly he is saying something bad. i really tried to enjoy my time with my son. i really try to only focus on those moments we have so i don't hope -- ask his father what he says. i don't poke the beast and say what you think this is doing to our child? i have many questions i would love to ask him and i don't have a chance because it is much more

important for me to see my son and to know that mommy is not crying and we are happy and we are having a good time. because that is normal right now. this boy doesn't have a mom. this boy is there completely separate from half of his life and i don't want to be continually adding to his distress. >> thank you. >> my son was 1-year-old when he was taken to mexico. and i hadn't seen him for two years. it was not a major concern because it is hard to formulate concepts of that is a bad person and a young child's mind. is my son gets older it is a concern i definitely have been following these cases for years now it is something that happens all the time. i just saw my son three weeks ago for about 15 minutes for the first time in two years, and as ms. edwards spoke to, we are

really concerned about her children. we really want -- i had not seen him for two years and i believed he would not remember me when i saw him. i did not run and grab him. i came up to heaven i said hi, how are you doing? i asked him what his name was, and he looked at me. i was relieved to see that there was a recognition that i was someone important, that i was someone he knew even if he didn't know i was dead and they have been teaching him to call his grandfather father. i believe that is a very serious piece of parental alienation that will be hard to change. so for the time being, i think seeing the reaction my son had for me, we played for 15 minutes and we both enjoyed ourselves. i think when i saw that reaction, that empathy that we had, that relationship that still exist than a potential for it to grow, haven't been able to see my son sense.

i've been in mexico for a total of four weeks prior to this hearing and i saw my son for the first week for 15 minutes and they have been completely unresponsive to allow me to see them again. i think it is an effort at alienation to at some point be able to say look, the child doesn't know him. he does not respond to him. he has no relationship so it is a legal tactic as well as a form of child abuse frankly. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. goldman, in your letter to secretary clinton and the letter that was signed by the left-behind parents of the 117 children, you state that in our experience all too often these international child abduction cases do not appear to be addressed aggressively because of the state department sever to

maintain harmonious bilateral relations with other countries or to pursue other compelling foreign-policy goals. mr. bob bermudez you alluded to the same thing in your testimony, the frustration with the state department. now, i would like to ask the three of you, if we were the state department, what is it that you want to tell them and what is it you want us to ask of them and to tell them? if you could be specific with us, what do you see, what do you want the state department to do? i disagree with the fact that the state department doesn't work for the american people, because they do. ultimately they are to be representing the american people and you are the american people. so i did like to hear from you specifically. what is it that you need and you want from the state department so we can have the opportunity to make those demands of them? we will start with mr. goldman. >> well, first as a former assistant secretary in the western hemisphere pointed out

that the last hearing two years ago, when there is an ambassador who was appointed, say to mexico or columbia, their first order of business is going to be immigration, drugs

where congress, each congressman knows when a child is abducted from their district, and they will be the advocate and get involved with the state department. also the state department needs tools. they should be here begging us for help that they need and have needed for so many years. it shouldn't be anything that we have to introduce and that hope for democrats and republicans would get together to help other children. the state department should be here begging for us for the help and to give them the tools that they so desperately need in their toolbox. [applause] and if it has to go all the way up to economic sanctions, it has to go up to economic sanctions. [applause] >> ms. edwards i have the same question for you.

aside from the points that david mentioned, one huge pacific is that there should be a way for the state department to correspond with the turkish -- excuse me with the central authorities in the hague signatory countries. and that they should be able to flag people who are subject to a current hague case and prevent them from traveling outside the country during a current hague case. this is something that can be done and something that should be done. the fact that there is a good possibility mohammed will come back and try to maintain his legal residency status, retain his green card status. he can come into any port, do that, stay a couple of days and go home, which held -- without my son having to come here or without my son having to meet --

i guess those are the to specifics i really would pray for. yeah, i would say that. >> thank you. mr. bermudez? >> the state department. [inaudible] >> can you turn your mic on? >> interest in foreign countries. yeah, sure. i think one of the problems we have with their foreign service officers is what might be called a form of client -itis where it is unclear whether our foreign service officers represent foreign countries in america or american interest in a foreign country. i think one thing that would be of value to us is to have each

applicant at the state department identified where the united states is on a globe to be sure that we know, that they know who they are working for. [applause] the other thing i would really like them to know is you know, when we want to promote the interest of that the children, we are not asking for something that is unpopular. this is something that will be respected. this is not an irritant. this is something every other country has this problem. we have to look beyond the trees to see the forest. it is a case where you know, if we can lead on this issue, this is a human rights issue inlets be very clear about that. contrarily suspending political capital will gain political

capital. we will have the opportunity to speak on moral authority and other issues and that is something that is sorely lacking and our lack of efficacy -- advocacy is detrimental to our foreign-policy. i think it has a negative effect rather than. >> we are not asking these countries for any favors. we are asking them to abide by the rule of law. we don't want favors. it is not a favor to return are affected children. it is abiding by the rule of law. it should be so simple. >> thank you very much. i appreciate your courage to be here today into all the folks in the room. thank you area much for your willingness to come out and i ask you not to be discouraged. understand all these hearings and this many years later, but i think you have a pledge on these members of congress that we are concerned and we will hold the state department will talk with them and certainly hold them accountable. they do work for the american

people and the to pay their salaries of thank you all very much for being here. [applause] >> i want to thank are very distinguished panel. i just want to ask one yes or no question. you know it has been said that if you say you don't have time, you have stated a fact. i know david you have spoken to the u.s. ambassador in brazil. it took a long time that i wonder ms. edwards and mr. bermudez have you had contact with u.s. ambassador? >> no. >> absolutely not. >> anything else you would like to add before we go to panel number two? thank yous a much for your testimony. [applause] i would like to welcome our second panel, and beginning with mr. michel elias who is currently a bergen county sheriff and the state of new jersey.

marine corps, and met his wife while stationed in japan. in 2004 to 2005. shia death of their two children, jade and michael come, to japan in december of 2008. through his testimony here we will hear about the challenges that parents and children who are addicted to japan face particularly from when they have military personnel. a go parenthetically that earlier this year i traveled with nancy and mcgill but elias, jane and michael's grandparents, so michael's mom and dad to japan and spent several days their meeting with high officials in the japanese government, and it was very clear that when they got to make their case, they were very empathetic ears but the question was whether or not those sympathetic ears turned into tangible policy that will permit the return of children who would

offended gupta to japan. as i said at the outset it needs to be underscored with exclamation points. if there is a mere ascension to the hague without resolving the existing cases, there will be a gross miscarriage of justice erpa traded upon those american children and those left behind parent, so this committee and i'm sure members of both sides of the aisle will be very emphatic to our friends in japan it is a government that needs to from mr. joshua izzard who is the father of a son born in chicago in illinois in 2000 it. she was taken by her mother to russia in october of 2010. ms.-- mr. izzard has not seen his daughter since september of last year and has not been allowed to talk to her since january. mr. collin bower is the father

nor and ramsey were affected by from boston to egypt in august of 2009. collin remains committed to his safe and swift return of his children. i am pleased to have joined barney frank in sponsoring h.r. as 193 with regards to their particular case. distinguished members of the subcommittee, my name is michel elias and i would like to thank you for your opportunities to share my personal experience involving international child abduction. i would like to first extend my deepest sympathies to the people of japan affected by the death -- not devastation of the earthquake, tsunami and disasters. in the former sergeant of the united states marine corps from august 2003 to november 2007. i am currently a bergen county

sheriff in the state of new jersey. while stationed in japan in 2004 to 2005, i met my wife. shortly thereafter i was stationed in camp lejeune north carolina. she contacted me and informing me she was pregnant. in september of 2005, she relocated to the united states and on october 18, 2005, and we were married in rutherford new jersey. our first child, and jade was born on january 5, 2006 at the naval hospital in camp lejeune. in march of 2007, i was deployed to iraq. on august 2, 2007, when i was serving my country, my son michel angelo elias was born at hackensack medical center in new jersey. this inspired new levels of patriotism and responsibility inside of me that were matched with a love for my family and children. while i was deployed, she and my

children lived with her parents in new jersey. during that time she started a relationship with a japanese national. when i returned from serving my country in iraq, she and my children and extended families were reunited and living in new jersey. sadly, a few months after my return, she and i separated. i was then served with a document from her headlining an agreement for travel and residency. stating that i, michel elias and my two children could visit japan without any restrictions under any circumstances. these conditions were not met i would have to surrender any custody rights of jade and michel to miami. this would also result in a relocation of our two children to japan from the united states if she'll likes to do so. the documents then stated, whether or not any actions of

michel elias is complied with the conditions above are determined and must respect her decision at any time also, regardless of the court's decisions. michel elias or specs the terms stated above. i sought counsel after she asked me to sign a document that she had are designed on september 26, 2008. on october 29, 2008 before the honorable judge alexander h. carver of the superior court of bergen county new jersey, i was awarded custody of my children. on that day, judge carver clearly ordered three times that the children's passports both american and japanese, be turned over to her attorney because she was an obvious flight risk. i did everything i could to ensure the safety and well-being of my children. i felt confident had every reason, reasonable expectation in our legal system with the

ruling of judge carver and the strength of the united states government. that my american-born children would be protected from being kidnapped to japan. i was wrong. myumi was an employee of the japanese consulate in new york city issuing visas and passports. she used her position in the consulate as a tool to carefully collaborate the abduction of our children. myumi had replacement passports issued in the japanese consulate in chicago where she and her boyfriend exited the country to chicago's o'hare airport. they carried out the abduction of our children on the japanese airline flight number nine bound for tokyo airport in japan on december 6, 2008. i still have in my possession the original passports. my family and i are horrified and sickened by myumi's actions. we have repeatedly tried to contact consulates in new york, chicago washington and continue

to receive no corporation whatsoever. surely after she arrived in japan i was contacted by myumi saying she had unilaterally decided she would raise the children in japan. one explain to her that she had kidnapped our children, she maintained that i quote, it is not kidnapping. my country will protect me. thereafter i was awarded full custody of our children here in the united states. the judge also ordered the immediate return of the children to the united states from japan by means of the hague convention. unfortunately, the judge was unaware of japan not being a signatory of the treaty and japan's lack of a session something myumi seemingly understood. to date no child is ever been returned by the japanese government according to the state department statistics. there are 321 documented cases of abduction from the u.s. to japan alone. if we include numbers of american children abducted while living in japan, statistics

would significantly be higher. it is no doubt that these crimes will continue and at the time of our next a department meeting these figures will have risen as more children what continue to be unwillingly and unlawfully abducted. since the abduction i have pleaded with myumi to return our children back to the indopak -- indopak assuring there were no criminal charges pending for fear she will not return under those conditions. on january 5, 2010, i was granted the privilege to see my children via skype. does my daughter's fourth birthday. although it was very hard to see my children through a monitor, it was very satisfying to see them so happy to see me. my daughter jade looked at her mother mother in hartigan said ever so softly something in japanese. when i asked myumi what jade had said she replied, she wants to be with him. the monitor immediately went lank. that was the last time i saw my

daughter's face. february of this year my parents flew to japan with the assistance of the united states embassy in tokyo. congressman smith and my attorney patricia tried to contact myumi to ask if they could visit their grandchildren. after countless e-mails and phonecalls were ignored, the u.s. embassy was able to reach myumi and she denied any access from my parents. she also told the embassy she was not accepting any other phonecalls. excuse me. needless to say, my parents were devastated but not shocked. the sense of longing for my children can be completely unbearable and crippling it times and does not get better with time. it only grows deeper and deeper. along with the sense of hopelessness as a father, who no

longer has his children to hold in his arms, i cannot deal with the sorrow so i try my best to stay strong and keep providing for their return. all my hopes and dreams for their future now lie in the hands of others. i am baking our government to help not only my family but hundreds of other heartbroken families as well, to demand the return of our american children who are being held in japan and in most cases never seen from or heard from again. this goes against everything we stand for as americans and especially for her children's lives and well-being. this is not just a family issue or an international issue. this is a human rights issue. our children are too young to speak for themselves. i am expecting our government to be their voice. in conclusion, i would like to read the names of the following american children abducted and

wrongfully retained in japan who are unaccounted for since the earthquake tsunami and the ongoing nuclear disaster. keonna bird, k. collins, kai and oh, david, joshua, lucy greenberg, shannon, ricky kephart, noel kephart, mary victoria lee, keonna and -- now

ask mr.-- if you could proceed. >> thank you mr. chairman and members of congress for inviting me to testify today regarding the ongoing tragedy of international parental kidnapping. i am joshua izzard soul and legal guardian. my american-born and race daughter of an only child who has taken almost eight bits ago to russia. whose voice i haven't heard for many long months now. i have been living for nearly eight months with a hole in my life while some like mr. tom sylvester in cincinnati ohio whose testimony read during the preparation of my own and his daughter and others like them have lived with that whole for many years. our great country must stop the constant bleating of its most important resource, its children. in the interest of others more tangible or natural resources.

as a nation we need to construct legal mechanisms to facilitate resolution of existing parental kidnappings and put in place effective preventive mechanisms to assure that our citizens are not subjected to this daily unbearable sorrow that comes in the wake of international parental kidnapping. ..

afternoon light filtering through the dead silence of our living room gently touched the circle as my daughter's favorite toys left exactly as she had been pleading with them. daddy's home, only silence, thundering silence. initial denial became result to protect my child who now lives in a grave danger. to bring her back to her love unlawful home. since the kidnapping by offers of compromise and reconciliation have gone unanswered. court orders and decisions ignored and please to at least have phone calls with my daughter and he did. a local arrest warrant has been issued for tatiana. the fbi interpol, chicago, the national center for missing and exploited children, state department and congressman offices. they're all involved. though the fbi open case called a long in the office of children issues tataris refused to confirm the fbi as to how the of the contacting my ex-wife.

i've given interviews to u.s. and russian media each time to simply speak with me to negotiate a solution. everyone and everything she had known from birth and one cruel selfish and stand by her mother taught diyala and her maternal grandmother and abruptly plenished into a strange world of darkness, mental illness and physical danger. tatiana's statement declared that she immediately moved in with her high school boyfriend in russia and the views of individual named entrée with whom has been proven she had been having an extramarital relationship prior to the kidnapping. she was a violent alcoholic with numerous document all citations for public intoxication, drunk driving for which he lost his license and physical violence offenses ranging from assaulting a board employee to terrorizing neighbors with drunken rages to accusations of child molestation. both his former wife and longtime live-in partner reports that his inability to control

himself when drinking was a primary cause for the breakup of the relationship and he is furthermore reported to be a devoted use of psychoactive drugs, engaging in ritualistic sexual behavior and forcing females to dominate for from society. this is precisely what my ex-wife has done. despite not working, tatiana attended only two court hearings in russia before signing over her full power of attorney regarding aspects of the divorce including the upbringing and custody to a violetta alcoholic whose decisions will impact my daughter's life forever. the role of the russian consulate in the abduction itself and suing the legal process has seen russia make a joke of its own all the and flaunt its and unity to the international community. to accomplish the abduction, taught the ghana turned to the russian consulate in washington, d.c. for help. what she said is on known, that she was issued a one time russian repatriation certificate

with our american daughter's name written on it. this allowed her to of dhaka our daughter, a u.s. citizen from u.s. soil and transporter to a country. imagine the situation. please anyone here who travels frequently. too nervous russian women with a bewildered two-year-old u.s. citizen passing through security and boarding a foreign bond commercial flight at one of america's busiest airports without passports, without a signed permission of the father. tatiana wrote to thank russian diplomats for the certificate issued shortly after the kidnapping. this is in possession of the fbi. to reiterate, the tse officials accepted a travel document in lieu of a passport and the airline flew with required no further checks as to why and how these individuals were boarding an international flight with no passport and no written permission from the other parent while the very moment the father was happily in rome for presence

to bring back to his family. diplomatic abuse and lacks of control and effective procedures made this abduction possible. i have many close friends in russia but sadly it is a country and which on the international law and human rights are frequently violated but one which doesn't follow the letter of its own law. consider the fact that since 2003 russia has unilaterally refused to observe its duties in the 1965 service convention. it will not serve its citizens with divorce papers or legal documents from the united states of america, yet it permits the citizens into court that they were not properly served because the papers were not delivered by the service convention to the ministry of justice in russia. despite this i was able to satisfy both american and russian process service requirements and went on to live the american custody case when we were divorced and december 9th 2010. i proceeded to legalize the divorce decision at the russian

consulate in washington, d.c. and this decision was affirmed by the russian government's vital records office in moscow, who stated the american divorce was valid in russia from the moment december 29, 2010, that it went into effect. now, please prepare yourself for land of lawlessness and intrigue. provincial russian judge being in possession of the properly served american divorce decision translated into russian allowed tatiana to initiate a divorce suit with me as the respondent the first hearing was on january 20, 2011, nearly a month after we were divorced with a decision the russian state had already considered valid. my ex-wife's brucker as the former head of the legal department is a person with a deep political, judicial and intelligence service connections. within days, a smear campaign including prime time specials still fighting the was undertaken. the media campaign included

public statements and letters by politicians who both violated russian constitutional law regarding separation of the political and judicial systems. they both approached judges they themselves publicly declared so and requested an expedited outcome in favor of the russian mother. petition her brother's former superior runs a live blog in which he published an entry about my family, titled "i am against america." i then received serious threats against my life, so serious i won't travel lending credibility to my former wife that i don't care enough about my daughter to even visit her. please note, mr. chairman, there is never mention of the welfare of my daughter, rather it's russia against america and my daughter exposed a political pawn. the process leading up to my quote on quote second divorce

from my only wife on march 24, 2011 was fraught with bye yes. legal infractions were numerous, the presiding judge met in private with tatiana's side. evidence wasn't seriously introduced in the court -- sorry, the clerk files. decisions, consisting of several tight pages were ready within minutes or even seconds of the conclusion of the hearing. indicating that they had been prepared beforehand. at one hearing it was claimed to and have-year-old said she didn't wish to skype with her father and was argued that would constitute child abuse to enforce visitation. this argument was upheld by russian courts. it is stated i am currently in russia applauding a rambo attempt to bring her home and was forbidden to travel with my daughter. my passport proves i cannot travel on outside the united states since i was in rome. russian emigration border control or the russian consulate here in washington, d.c. confirm that i have not had a russian

visa that would be impossible for me to travel there since 2007. on march 24, 2011, i was divorced from a person that russia had acknowledged i was not married to and had not been for the preceding three months. during the hearing, 20 procedural norms of the russian code of civil procedure or civil code were broken. tatiana was awarded full custody and another divorce as well as child support which is supplied by russian standards would require a local father to pay 80% of his income. a complete list of the violations is available upon request. but here is a quick sample in order of the breaking. i want to enumerate the numbers meaningless. however, a summary of them is by violating the existing russian law, the russian courts provided a legalization of the adoption. i was never served with any court documents from russia, neither was i allowed to give testimony or present statements

from scores of what mrs. willing to testify. my ex-wife only witnessed the militias testimony against me including statements that we had spoken in 2011 when in fact the last time that i've spoken with this individual was 2,009. i wasn't given time for translations of the documents. my lawyer was denied or delayed access to the case that he feels. my illegalized russian court decision and russian government approved by was already divorced were not taken into consideration. a higher court process was ignored by the lower courts and the courts refused to accept and registered official evidence. the case was tried in to court which had no jurisdiction because no evidence was even presented that she could be a russian citizen. my daughter and i were denied and continue to be denied contact with each other throughout the course of the proceeding. again explicitly violating the russian law. but there is no mechanism for

enforcement. so grievous with the violations at ten days ago in a court in russia held my viewpoint overturning the lower court's decision in its entirety and sending the case back to the same of lower court but to be retried by a different judge. my ex-wife and i may soon have a singular distinction having been married once but divorced three times. however, the appeal was reviewed without notification of my legal counsel, and the second half of the session occurred without him being present. as has happened numerous times to it and while the decided that many infractions, the overwhelming reason for the overturn of the previous decision was that no evidence had been presented that she is a russian citizen. and so, to my surprise, in the course of this very cheering, at the beginning i was given the fact, a copy of a fax from the

russian consulate confirming indeed that my daughter is a russian citizen, and furthermore, with a document which i have never seen but there is my signature giving permission to the granting of russian citizenship to my daughter. very expedient. mr. chairman, i contend that my daughter and i have the inalienable right to a full and loving parental child relationship. the russian consulate, courts and government assistance have facilitated violation of my daughters and my right to the most basic human relationship, the foundations of law, international diplomacy, and one of the most important elements society in fact be elemental on the family. the alienation that is beginning now has lifelong consequences for me and the entire family in the u.s.. i cannot imagine doing to my daughter is being done to her.

i deplore my family tragedy being politicized, and i appeal to russia to look beyond a political one of censure and to acknowledge the horrible injustice is being done to a little girl who needs her father and a father and family that loves her little golden head, sparkling eyes and laugh. americans must take decisive stance on defending ever own citizens. our own in a legal rights to the most basic of relationships and bonds a person has both detained children and their parents. i pray that ever testimony's might lead to legislation which would unite all parties which prevent similar situations for other parents and children who might suffer deutsch to the decisions of one or the other parent. intervention by the governor of agencies whose hands are tied by incomplete or nonexistent laws and enforcement mechanisms can lead to one the futrell that he had one alone. in the non-hagee cases and as we see many cases of child of dhaka jim, physical position of the child spells complete control of the situation and of the other

parent. the situation must be remedied forever children's future. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] the chair recognizes mr. baer. >> thank you come honorable committee members for inviting me to testify today. chairman smith, thank you in particular for your support of eight s. res. 193 with congressman frank. my children, both american citizens were kidnapped and are being held illegally today in egypt by egypt. meanwhile, the united states reports egypt by giving them billions of dollars of aid to the billion dollars in particular announced last week. this is wrong. by any definition when i call any aid in egypt to the united states until they recognize human rights, the spirit of their own revolution and in doing so returned my son's. norm and ramsey ten and eight

were kidnapped in 2000 mine by their mother. in light of the conditions outlined in eight s. res. 193, i you've always assumed the parenting responsibilities for my boys. i woke up with them everyday, said them, clothed them, made sure they got to school or the appropriate activity, i scheduled for them and brought them to their plates and parties, i bade them, read to them and put them to bed. i changed jobs in order to simultaneously support my family financially and act as a single parent. before and after the divorce, i remained the sole legal primary custodial parent. what i worry about most is their present safety and their future quality-of-life. i wonder what they are being taught. i believe this will determine what they think and what choices they will ultimately have in life. their futures are being impacted each day they remain parented by in and sit mother who remains

supported by her government and enabled by her family from the abduction to the ongoing support of parental alienation and child abuse, both financially through their family company and otherwise. my boys are being forced to hide from the rest of the world and cannot imagine what this must be like for them. there are several notable issues involved in this tragedy. first, this is not a custody battle. it was a 20 month court case in boston completed in december, 2008 in which both parties participated from start to finish including being represented by six separate high-powered u.s. divorce attorneys. this is a federal crime. the fbi issued a federal warrant for the arrest of her including the issuance of an interpol ret notice. third, this involves national security. she obtained egyptian passports for the children and false last names. the passports were in false names, the egyptian passports

were real. passport fraud, which this is, is an extraditable offense under the mutual legal assistance treaty that exists today between egypt and the united states. the passports by definition are used to commit crimes and other countries just as in this case. fourth, this is child abuse. the supreme court and other international bodies seem both child of abortion and parental alienation child abuse. this is not debatable. the fact that she was found to be a long-term addict of narcotics and incapable of anticipating the boies needs is yet another list of child abuse, which imperils the blaze today. last week this is a state-sponsored crime. the egyptian government issued false passports. the indirectly only airline that ignored ought of these flags by letting her to get the boys to egypt and they provided security through the egyptian state

security agency, the agency which is now defunct after the revolution for being corrupt. the egyptian government shut down streets for her to travel, something they don't do for the highest level politicians. there are many things we can do immediately to protect our children and the sick human rights. because times limit on the wing to five, the first and most obvious given current defense before receiving the 2 billion-dollar defacto package announced last week egypt must demonstrate through action its commitment to human rights. even the people of egypt who will either benefit or suffer from this aid have spoken about the need to make sure that this money doesn't simply continue the power structure that existed under the now defunct mubarak regime. by definition, my children's rights are and have been abused for 21 months now. i call on the u.s. government to ensure that the new egyptian government is protecting its human-rights, not of violating

them and demonstrates this for the rate return of more and ramsey before giving any aid to egypt. second, before receiving a we need to ensure that the mlat is being enforced by partners inappropriate extradition is being carried out. this is a national security issue and one that impacts all of us in the united states. we shouldn't provide aid to countries that have enabled [crying] to be committed in our country against our citizens and who do not implement conditions of the mlat. any agreement can be signed, but it's not enforced, it is worse than having no treaty at all as it allows the purveyors of d.c. two flights under a false cloak of legitimacy. third, before they receive a and we need countries to agree to recognize the existing probate orders involving custody decisions reached in a residential jurisdictions where both parties were active participants in legally represented. the country harboring a fugitive should issue and there were consistent with the existing order of the country of the

children's primary residence. these are principles not inconsistent with the convention today. fourth, i call on the republican party to stop the moratorium on the resolutions being heard and make available the ability of the house resolutions to be heard on the floor including notably eight s. res. 193 which is bipartisan and involves the lives of my two little boys. alternatively, i ask for exceptions to be made in case is crucial to the lives of american children including my deutsch and others in similar situations. i ask that both parties stand together to send a strong message to egypt and other countries that we support the e egyptian people's goal of obtaining democracy and human rights by ensuring the new government acts in concert with these values before receiving the financial backing of the united states. given the relevant facts, it's not a stretch to say that each prez 193 effective upon could very well save the lives of norm and ramsey. fifth, they're must be further controls in place to protect

against the unlawful removal of our children to foreign countries, and my case the divorce judgment did call for a restriction on my ex-wife to remove the children from the commonwealth where such controls in place this removal would not have happened. committee members i think you for your invitation to speak today and for your consideration of this most important issue. >> thank you very much for your testimony. [applause] thank each of you for your very specific recommendations and for very carefully delineating your individual hardraker because the tulsa is to get a better handle on what we can do to be hopefully positive and our response as well. i would again note that this is a panel of non-hagee countries. the three of you have had your children are abducted to a country that hasn't signed unlike our first panel. but i wonder if you could -- and

we will have a series of votes so i will be brief and submit other questions later but the office of children's issues if you could tell us briefly how well or poorly they have served you and i would encourage you not to worry that retaliation even though that is easier for me to say then you come and if any of you come any of the parents know of an instance where someone cuts an attitude or worse as a result of your kimber we as an oversight and lawmaking legislative committee need to know that because we all serve you and i want to say that again with emphasis. i would like to know if each of you have had a phone call from perhaps the ambassador or any contact with the ambassador in russia and egypt and japan, and also to give you spoke and michael elias' case as a passport being issued under fraudulent circumstances. in other words, the judge took

the original passport and then someone at the consulate office in chicago, illinois, falsely issued either knowingly or unknowingly, we don't know still, the japanese government told you that there would be an investigation. what has happened to that investigation? we ask -- and before you answer in case of mr. bower, and you talked about outright fraud, where it's clear with rall names in violation as you put of the mlat. what has been the response of our government to you on that issue, and then i will yield for any questions she might have. >> as far as the children's issues, congressman smith, have not -- i have spoken with them directly. i have not gained or lost anything from them so there's no comment i can make upon that. and as far as the phone call from the ambassador from japan i have not personally spoken, received the letter or heard any news of good or bad from him

personally. >> briefly, as somebody [inaudible] called you at any time has it been oic? >> there's the ongoing investigation the past three years in december my three children have been gone i have not received anything upon investigation or call from there in the sea directly from chicago or new york. >> has -- do you and the other left behind parents whose children have been abducted with the g8 summit very shortly to be convened and the anticipated announcement by japan that they may sign the hagee of course with reservation there could be catastrophic, how does that make you feel and the other left behind parents whose kids are in japan? >> as far as them signing of the hague convention, i don't see it happening personally, and like we discussed before, even if they do, there's going to be

numerous different kind of language in it that would probably present me or any other left behind. as of right now from being grandfathered in, and would definitely have to be - we should definitely -- if we are getting them to sign the hague convention, we should sit down and to clear what we wanted the hague convention, not what they see right to be put in just so they can have as off their back. [applause] >> so in your view there would need to be a side door agreement country to country -- >> there needs to be sit down. [applause] >> i would like to answer first the question regarding the feet oci. it's been competent. they have conducted the to welfare visits in russia based entirely upon the information

which i had to literally spend a fortune on to locate my wife and daughter. however, the office of children's issues has refused to coordinate with the fbi so that the fbi investigation could move forward. to the agency and working without of the chicago field office, obviously has an open case with a member, however because of the unusual circumstances that we were not going -- we were not getting divorced when my daughter was abducted there is a very high bar to clear in order for there to the federal criminal charges. however, oci hasn't provided the relevant information how to contact tatiana commesso that the fbi could hopefully get them to contact her and get her side of the story. regarding contact with the embassy or the investor, my mother assisted me greatly in contacting the embassy in

moscow. she was a time living in moscow. however, the oci here in washington discouraged us from continuing to do so because they would like to be handled through the office in washington, d.c. even though the people on the ground in russia have a better understanding of the very unique circumstances regarding to say the way things are done in russia. >> i think that's all. >> in my case i've spoken with the ambassador and met with the ambassador in cairo a number of times and then almost weekly contact with the general. i speak directly and communicate directly with the ambassador jacobs and the responsiveness has not been my issue. really it is ironic in a way

that this takes away from the need to act on either party and i would give up this attention for one single act with your move in the direction of a return and i've not seen that and i think a lot of the diplomatic speak its in the way as any whatsoever. i would also note that for the record it's difficult to speak directly about the state department when you believe that the return of your children falls squarely into their hands and to think about being - in any which way. as a family, as a parent in this situation you do not in any way want to speak out against the could potentially provide an avenue for the return to the regarding the mlat, the state department filed a request for information. the assistant u.s. attorney filed a request, senator kerry sent a letter.

i have as is my right according to the egyptian law filed a request for information regarding the pastore documents. all have been denied or ignored, and the attorney's office is continuing to pursue this. they have said to cut the assistant u.s. attorney the have a narrow and i do not know what that means. there is no precedent except the extradition under mlat from egypt. >> thank you for your testimony. i just wonder being a military person do you see these issues perhaps been more prevalent with members from our military with regards to with deer serving? >> i see it being more prominent in the military strictly because you are subjected to overseas at

low periods of time, and if i could give anything to that question when you are brought overseas in the country that to go to being a marine your brief on everything from the number of people that have aids to the amount of robberies committed you are given classes on how the ocean comes in and hits the shore. out of all of those class is i should have been given a class on child of the auction or at least had -- [applause] had made aware to me because i was so young in japan i was only 19-years-old and i had no idea that i would be sitting here before any of you today. ..

>> in egypt also, a country that's going through a transition, perhaps it may be an opportunity. there's a very close military relationship to the egyptian military who are currently in charge, and it might be a suggestion to our state

department officials and even the department of defense because they were probably the ones that influenced the egyptians not too far on the people, the egyptian people, the military-to-military kind of relationship they have, and as we saw in other countries like syria and tunisia, the military fight, and in egypt, they didn't so there could possibly be at this time an opportunity to have our government talk even if it's military state department to the egyptian government, so i would hope that that might be a window of opportunity and even actually in russian areas, a little better working relationship with the russian authorities and the u.s.. they have cooperated with us on iran, for example, the prorifflation of the potential of nuclear weapons, and so i

would hope that perhaps one of the, one of the remarks from the committee would be we make a special appeal because of the special situation. it doesn't apply to everybody in every country, but at least your countries, i think there is some hope at least that there could be some dialogue, so with that, i won't ask you any other questions. we have votes coming up, and i'll yield to other members of the panel. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you to you all for being here today. thank you for your service to this country. i will ask three brief questions and allow other members to ask their questions and submit additional questions in writing. mr. izzard, in your temperature you mentioned -- in your testimony you mentioned two russian diplomats in the

embassy and your wife worked with them. has any follow-up been done? anyone held them accountable? was there any prosecution? >> there has been no prosecution. there was a meeting approximately one month ago with the department of state and russian consulate employees. the state department declined to tell me when whom they met in particular. i do not believe it was these two individuals, and the russia consulate stated their policy is any person coming in their front door who proves their a russian citizen, that word is taken at face value, on good face, and therefore they thought they were justified in doing whatever that they did, and in issuing whatever this repatriation certificate allowing my ex-wife and daughter to leave the country without passports. >> somebody from the state

department attended that meeting, but you were not involved? >> i was not involved and given limited information as to what occurred. >> do you know who the person from the state department was? >> i believe it was ms. jenelle guest who was accompanied by somebody else, but i don't know that name. >> thank you. mr. elias, same with you. after the passports were surrendered, you testified your ex-wife obtained new passports. has there been been investigation of her actions, anyone who may have assisted her, and any outcome to that or prosecution? >> i have my speculations who assisted her and everything like that. i don't want to get into that, but there is supposedly an ongoing investigation that i have not received a conclusion for at this time. >> in your situation, is it the

state department as well? who is conducting this investigation? >> the actual embassy of japan. >> thank you, and lastly, mr. bower, you mentioned about the tsa's role and the airline's role about the fact they let the children go through. has any further action been taken against the airlines or tsa? have you had a conversation with them, made them aware of the situation? >> yes, as a matter of fact, there's currently a suit i filed against egypt air in this matter, and the suit is ongoing, so i can't speak much about it. i'll leave it like that, but, yes, we're in discovery of this issue. >> in regards of the tsa, were they put on notice of what happened? >> yes, they have. >> okay. i yield back my time, thank you

mr. chairman, and thank you to our witnesses today. >> thank you very much. mr. marino? >> chairman, i do not have any questions, but i want to make a statement though. first of all, i cannot begin to imagine what pain all of you have gone through, and you have my deepest sympathies. i know that two best wonderful days of my life is when i adopted my babies. before i was a prosecutor, i was involved in domestic law, and here in the united states, and it can be extremely difficult. i can only magnify that by about a million times with domestic law or international divorce law and custody, but i think where we can start here is because you've answered all the questions e qeptly, there's no question that i could ask that would e elicit a resolution, but

i think i speak for my colleagues, and it's been certainly -- the chairman has gone done this path wops or twice -- once or twice. i think the place we need to start is with your representatives, your congressman, your congresswoman, your senators, because we deal a great amount of time with foreign issues. we deal with ambassadors. given the fact we're on, you know, judiciary, foreign affairs, homeland security, these all overlap, and in many cases, having a congressman or a congresswoman or a senator involved may to a certain extent expedite the matter. i see my colleague to the lest of me who is writing down names from state departments, and we can make phone calls. we can ask for meetings with

these people, and if we have to, demand what could be and should be done, and we're talking about international law. we're talking about treatyies, and relationships or lack there of with other countries, but i think we can initiate the task that you've undertaken, and it seems like many of you have undertake p the tasks yourselves, so the only thing that i can offer at this point is contact us from the beginning. we will play a vital role in this, communicating with our state department and our ambassadors. i'm a new member to congress, but i can tell you that i've spoken with numerous ambassadors and addressing the specific issue with them.

i presented to the ambassadors a situation that had nothing to do with why they were visiting me, but with what the united states had on their miebd concerning other issues, and got their attention rather quickly, so perhaps in the future, we can assist that way at the very least and help you through the process until we get this, your particular issue resolved, or until we get this resolved concerning any abductions of american children. i yield my time. >> mr. marino, thank you very much. you raised an extraordinarily important point that we can be advocates. i encourage if you haven't already to be in contact with your individual member and to senators. in the last preerptions bill, language was included in the bill that admonished, told,

instructed, the office of children's issues to inform a left behind parent who files with them that a good advocate could be their own individual representative, but because of privacy act reasons, they, you know, they won't automatically say to us because i'd like to know who in my district or state, for example, who is a left behind parent, and i'm not sure how that's implemented. i asked for them, but didn't necessarily get good answers back, but it does mean then we'll be on their backs as our constituents rightfully should be on our backs to do our job. we all serve the people, and not the other way around. i thank you all. if there's anything else you would like to add before panel number three, you've been tremendous witnesses. i agree with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. our hearts go out to you, and we'll do everything we can to keep the pressure on.

mr. bower? >> i want to make one point, mr. chairman. i understand the foreign services committee has jurisdiction over bilateral aid? >> yes. >> i would note that the aid as announced last week in president obama's speech would therefore fall under the jurisdiction of this committee, and i ask that you make a stipulation that my children be returned before one dollar of that aid is given to egypt. >> thank you, sir. your point is well taken. [applause] >> the cooperation's committee and the authorizing committee have jurisdiction, so thank you so much for that. appreciate it. anything else? okay. i want to say to the other left behind parents here, there's additional hearings, we'll focus on the military side like michael elias and there's a bill that requires them as mr. payne

pointed out so well, to begin educateing so that people who are deployed overseas are not unaware of what the risks are and also that our jag core is much better acquainted with the issue of child abduction to better serve those who are deployed overseas. thank you so much, all three, for your tremendous testimony. thank you. [applause] i would like to now introduce the third panel of experts beginning with patricia apy, part of the law firm of paras, apy, and reiss specialing in child custody litigation. her qualifications for testifying to us are impressive and extensive, and i'll reference a few of them. she's qualified as an expert witness and consulted on international family disputes all over the world.

she is regularly qualified as an expert on family dispute resolution in non-hague countries and risk factors for child abduction and participated in numerous decisions on hague treaties regarding child ab direction and production and a consultant to the u.s. department of state and defense on issues involving families and children and the application of treaty law. she was also, as we all know, one of the lead attorneys, certainly the u.s. attorney for david goldman, and provided expert advice and counsel in that long case. next we'll hear there kristin wells. she provides lobbying service on a range of issues, and is well-known here on the foreign affairs committee as she previously served as deputy chief counsel to now ranking member, howard berman. she worked on child abduction issues with me and with my staff

and others including the crafting of h res which included patrick braden's case of his abducted child, melissa. i introduced this resolution calling on the brazillian government and that passed the house in may of 2009, and then we'll hear from jesse eaves, a child protection policy here in washington. it including childs soldiers, exploited child labor, child trafficking, and child sexual exploitation and works with world vision programs around the world to be sure protection is integrated into programming and international advocacy strategy and mobilizes americans to take a stand against abuse, neglect,

and violation against children. mr. apy, the floor is yours. >> [inaudible] earlier in the testimony there was reference by one of the witnesses todd concept of a time capsule, and that immediately resinated to the testimony i'm about to give because actually 11 years ago in may of 2000, i was asked by the clinton administration to travel to japan to begin discussions addressing the hague convention on the civil aspects of child abduction, and to discuss international child support obligations. ironically, both of those meetings, and i've sense obviously been to japan, most recently in the congressional delegation headed by congressman

smith, both of those meetings were and discussions about the hague convention were immediately proceeding the g8 summit. now, in 2000, i met with japanese officials, attorneys, judges, and american diplomats and american military commanders and talked about parental kidnapping, allegations of violence, and cases involving american service members. i left the meetings having been told by the japanese they were considering the protections found in the hague treaty, and i was told my american dip employee mats, they were discouraged at what appeared to be a little more than lip service. the topics discussed were the same as the discussions that have been held 11 years earlier. i'm expecting to return to japan in july do provide on-site training to american judge advocates and civilian attorneys serving our families abroad with

these considerations. i think that given that we have had the announce ms with respect to the hague convention, it's extraordinarily important to understand exactly what's being proposed and what is and is not responsive to the issues raised and the extraordinarily poised and heartfelt testimony you heard from of left behind parents. encouraging a session to the hague convention is a laudable goal and a step towards international law to define parental kidnapping as a wrongful agent which believe me as we sit here is not appreciated in japan. it ensures that the event issue resolution of a child custody dispute will be done in the place where the evidence is located regarding what is in the best interest of the child.

that's the focus of the convention. that's the child's residence. however, the moment that the jab these deposit the recession to the convention and request that a session to be accepted by the united states of america, a number of things will happen, and those have to be considered and appreciated particularly by the congress. one is that the people who are sitting behind me who have children ab ducted to japan will be left in a position of legal limbo. now, in cases in which we have a session filed by countries that have a family law construct and a type of family law which has a legal culture that appreciates custody and appreciates visitation, it confines those whose children have been abducted to have to litigate

their cases in the country to which the child has been taken. that's not what i'm talking about. in this situation, there is no remedy. promptses of the -- promises of the japanese domestic law that are going to be changed are welcome, but not responsive to the issue that this is an international parental abduction, and, of course, it's not responsive to the real issue raised here, and that is what happens when we are talking about issues of parental abduction that rise above the individual cases to a nation state's issue? no parent should be in the position of having to become the united states department of state which is essentially what you've heard described to you here today. [applause] the treaty provides that the convention will apply between contracting states only to wrongful removals or retentions

after entry after force. it's an initial proposition to cut off all the individuals, which, by the way, you listed incorrectly. non-hague countries are underreported by the states. there's no central authorities in the countries involved which are keeping accurate numbers. we keep numbers based on who has applied for assistance through the state department or applied through assistance by a central authority abroad. in the case of a nontreaty, there is no repository, and where of the individuals who have been effected don't bother to file, certainly historically, with the united states department of state because there were no services that were provided, no advantages to having done so. as a result, you have a whole host and percentage of cases who are simply up reported. the second is relating to

military members, abductions from our bases in japan, for example, are internal domestic abductions, and therefore, are not considered as international abductions despite the fact that american service member may have been living on one of our bases, so if the purpose of this hearing is in part to identify how we can improve the rate of the return of children, the very first thing you have to do is have a legitimate way of identifying how many children you have and what the problems are. the other issue is that if the session is deposited as it is expected with extensive reservations, it will be a lot worse than form over substance. in a recent press account issued in japan, there were assurances that the proposed legislation would specify that returns will

be denied in the case of child or spousal abuse, and there's "no negative effects on the welfare of the child." let me tell you that what that means is implying a best interest determination which is prohibited by the expressed language of the treaty. in other words, it converts it from a abduction case to a child custody case, and finally, the chairman of the japanese federation bar association said "urging the government not to rush into the treaty citing the need for thorough discussion by experts and related parties." well, as i indicate in my written remarks, it's difficult to imagine since the dialogue regarding the treaty was alleged to have begun before july of 2000 when the world leaders met and assurances were made to president clinton what further internal discussions could be conducted which would do anything other than delay and

obstruct the return of ab ducted children. the recommendations which are included in my written remarks include as it relates to not just the japanese issue, but any offering of an asession to not merely accept the session without some critical analysis, which has been the policy of the united states department of state. we accept the asession and worry about how it actually works. i must caution, it's a dangerous precedent. american judges rely on asessions as evidence that if they allow a child to visit grandma in a hague country like turkey, that the child will be returned in accordance with the hague convention, despite the fact that there may be no central authority that has been provided, despite the fact there's no political or actual

will on the part of that country to do so. i recommend that in advance of full come plieps with the treaty, that the united states department of state encourage the return of children through a number of diplomatic mechanisms. one is that they enter into a memorandum of understanding drafted to include an immediate protocol for the existing cases involving children alleged to be abducted to japan, within japan, as well as japanese children abducted to the united states. by setting this model protocol, issues of particular concern to japanese legislators could be addressed in advance of finalizing the lang in dmes -- language in domestic legislation, so if we're going to talk about issues for example of domestic violence which are genuine concerns and abuse which are concerns and by having an

mou opposed to what we have seen in many, many of these cases, and that is pretext to avoid returns, can be verted out and the japanese legislators dealing with rewrite of their domestic law have the benefit of experts in the united states who are facile with these issues and create an objective and credible mechanism for ensuring such allegations are seriously addressed, mutual recognition encouraged, and preventing false allegations to reduce the effectiveness of the treaty. we have to deal with the issues of american service members and their faps and assist judge advocates with tools to advice american service members and japanese-american family members of reasonable and enforceable resolutions, and we have to assess japan's commitment in preantal abduction by setting

standards that can be evaluated and can be addressed critically, if necessary. this provides a template for other countrying which are considering the steps approach ing signing on to the hague convention. we have other nations, particularly again my written remarks will address it, and i know we are start on time, but there was a comment made bouts state craft and the issues of state craft as it relates to these -- this particular problem. we have countries like pakistan, not only do we have significant issues of aid, but we have huge populations of pakistani-americans who have relationships and travel regularly back and forth. the united kingdom entered into bilateral agreements with the pakistanis to deal with child abduction issues. we should be in that same position.

again, historically, the united states department of state has taken a position that they will not entertain a memorandum of understanding because historically it was viewed to delude the global effectiveness of getting everyone on board, if you will, to the hague convention. the with that is the countries now, the non-hague countries in vast majority that have not entered into the hague have unique issues with respect to the religious and cultural elements of their law which make it necessary, very frankly, to find other ways to assure that they can become full reciprocal partners under the hague, and a memorandum of understanding provides that opportunity, and the united states department of state should immediately engage in discussions with judicial and governmental officials in non-hague countries that indicated they want to do that like the united ash emirates, india, and pakistan. finally, with regard to

reciprocity and the comments made with respect to the united states department of state and the office of children's issues and the perception of american left behind parents that they are not being advocated for. there is no question that the united states department of state off of children's issues has a client not the individual parent, but the united states of america. that is the reality. the problem is not that parents in my experience want them to be lawyers or want them to be embroiled in individual family litigation. they want them to do their job which is to address the diplomatic issues and efforts, collection of information, and accountability that an individual litigant cannot possibly do. in order for them to have the tools to